1. Lifeboats.According to regulations, it is no longer possible to place lifeboats as high above the water as Titanic's were. This would mean shifting them down to A, B or C deck, necessitating mass removal of staterooms and promenades.

2. What to do?Titanic was essentially a giant ferry, taking people to and from America and Britain. It was not a floating pleasure palace like today's cruise ships are. Therefore, passenger's experiences ought to be very boring as a modern audience would find almost nothing to do except stroll promenades or read. Which brings me to...

3. Classes.Would classes be implemented? How could they be? If there were no classes, then First Class and Second Class rooms such as the reception room and lounges would be crowded while I imagine the Third Class spaces would be unpopular and deemed not as aesthetically pleasing as the Grand Staircase.

4. Sizes.People one hundred years ago were smaller, a fact owing to dietary supplements and changes. This fact was most telling in James Cameron's 1997 Titanic film where the Grand Staircase was made a few feet bigger in all directions so that actors would not appear out of proportion. It is my belief that if Palmer does build Titanic true to scale, then the ship would feel very small indeed for those on-board.

5. Not to mention....Extreme pricing, Titanic-themed merchandise and gimmicks. What a lot of fun that will be!

6. Moral issues.Just how moral is it to re-build a liner that is famous for sinking? Why not build a replica of Olympic, as Titanic was of course an Olympic-class ship. The answer is branding and money, and so the name "Titanic" will be used to drag in the dregs of our society, those who saw the 1997 film, fell in love with a ship they know almost nothing about and cry with joy when they land tickets for the maiden voyage. It's like re-building the twin towers in a way.

7. Building the ship in China? Navy escorts?The ship is being built by CSC Jinling (http://www.jlshipyard.cn/eng_show.asp?menuid=2), a Chinese yard most competent in building bulk-carriers. In which way does a company's experience in building tankers qualify it to re-create one of the world's most beautiful liners?

Also, the fact that the Chinese navy has "offered" to escort the ship on its maiden voyage is, to me at least, a little off. Almost like it could be the beginning of some global tension.

With these points considered, it seems that passengers on Titanic II can enjoy:An over-priced voyage on a cheap copy of a luxury liner that carried people to their graves, with limited accommodation thanks to lifeboat placement, crowded luxury rooms, low ceilings, "over-saturation" of merchandising and nothing to do but stroll on deck and play cards.

Nevertheless, the vessel could be used as a floating museum. When anchored in a harbour, it could actually be an exact replica. I would appraise a Titanic museum inside an exact copy of the original vessel. That would be a respectful way to commemorate the ones who perished.

I fear however that the Titanic II will be (heavily) commercially exploited to make sure a return on investments is met. That would be disgusting, and possibly demystifying Titanic I.

A floating replica would be the best bet, with some spaces used for more modern facilities to appeal to the masses.

Titanic is small by today's standards so building a cruise ship of that size might not be the best idea. Many people who have swallowed the Titanic legend hook, line and sinker would be shocked to see Titanic dwarfed by your average modern passenger ship.

Part of me would rather see the $$$$$ invested in the S.S. United States and Queen Mary...........

>Titanic is small by today's standards so building a cruise>ship of that size might not be the best idea. Many people who>have swallowed the Titanic legend hook, line and sinker would>be shocked to see Titanic dwarfed by your average modern>passenger ship.

"Dr Freud - who is he? A passenger?"

Yes it would be much lower than many of those huge cruise ships, though not much shorter.

But having a Titanic replica sitting next to one of those huge ships would be like a modern Toyota people carrier sitting next to a '59 Dodge coupe. One is a large modern thing with a fat arse designed to maximize seats, the other is a sleek, forward-leaning, balanced object of beauty from a previous era.

If a replica got built and people were disappointed that it wasn't big enough, that's really annoying and smacks of people who have only got a very superficial interest in it.

>If a replica got built and people were disappointed that it>wasn't big enough, that's really annoying and smacks of people>who have only got a very superficial interest in it.

I'm glad you said that, John! I've met a number of people who still think to this day that the Titanic was a 'one off' when it comes to how big she was, and that she was as big as some of todays liners. of course, we all know that's a load of rhubarb. She was the biggest for a short time, and then larger ships followed.

I do think there will be a collection of small minded people who will walk away from Titanic with dissapointment when they see her (or her replica) in the flesh. Those are the same people who buy all the distastfull merch, dress up in period costume, have their nuptuals take place on the replica of the grand staircase, and pay thousands to go and see the wreck of a ship they know nothing about.

I just don't think Mr. Palmer will make his money back and not only will he have done his part in blemishing Titanic's legacy, but his replica will probably have to be sold and maybe scrapped alot sooner than he probably would have liked it to. after all, he's only trying to line his own pockets.

I'll have to agree. Modern people would be bored witless sailing on a perfect replica. The highlight of the day was some joker blowing a bugle to announce chow. There's only a handful of Titaniphiles willing to pay big bucks for that.

If the ship on the inside and outside only hints at what a Titanic sailing experience was like, who cares? You're paying for the name. If my Titanic experience is looking at the water from the boat deck for a while before going down to the casino, I think I'll save a lot of money by taking a cheap cruise and hope the ship catches fire or runs aground or something.

>If a replica got built and people were disappointed that it>wasn't big enough, that's really annoying and smacks of people>who have only got a very superficial interest in it.

Unfortunately, that describes the average person when it comes to Titanic. Over the last century Titanic has become a legend more than a ship. There are many people who think because Titanic sank in a spectacular fashion that she had to be the most spectacular ship ever built-PERIOD. (Personally, I think Hapag's Vaterland represented the pinnacle of ocean liner development before WW1 in terms of interior design. The Lusitania, Mauretania & Aquitania were nothing to sneeze at, either)

I would still rank Olympic as my favorite because of her interesting career and fine outer appearance.

I personally don't understand the motivation to build what would clearly be a one to one scale toy Ship ?. You can't build an almost exact replica it would never pass fire inspection or SOLAS law inspection so it would not be inhabitable. What is the point of building a container ship hull with 4 stacks and two masts stuck on top of it? I would never go onboard the latter and I would not be allowed to enter the former though I would be interested in boarding , so to me the whole proposal is pointless. I truely wish I could have walked the sets of Camerons Movie site that would have been exciting and memorable , short of that forget it. One Mans opinion, Bill Young

If this thread is turning into a discussion of whether they should make a replica...

Personally I'm surprised to hear any Titanic nut being negative - as if they wouldn't race down to the docks if it came to their town, as if they wouldn't be moved to see it arriving in New York after its maiden voyage.

There's a quote from Ken Marschall saying that he's spent his life trying to bring the Titanic back to life (to paraphrase). I think for a lot of the people on this forum who are building models and learning all about the ship - as well as those who are making 3D computer models of it - they are all trying to will it back to life, to make it re-appear before their eyes.

I suspect if Clive Palmer built it (albeit for the wrong reasons), he would run it until the gimmick wore off, and ultimately once it wasn't paying its way properly, and not advertising Queensland enough, it would be sold and hopefully end up in the hands of a preservation group a bit like what the SS United States has (though it would not be an old ship at the end of its working life). Maybe Jim Cameron could afford to buy it later.

A MONTH after hosting one of the Sunshine Coast's premier fine dining events, Palmer Coolum Resort will be home to Irish stews and hearty jigs.

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who acquired the resort with a plan to build a tourism portfolio, says the first week of August will become Titanic Week to generate interest in his newest tourism venture.

Mr Palmer (pictured) is launching his own international shipping line, Blue Star Line, and a 21st century version of the Titanic, to coincide with the 100-year anniversary of the original Titanic's tragic sinking in the Atlantic Ocean.

"Every restaurant at the resort will have on their menu the meals that were on the Titanic," he said.

"So you can go to the most fine dining restaurant up there and have same meal they had for breakfast in first class, the same meal for lunch and for the evening.

"We'll have restaurants that will act as the third-class lounge where you'll have a nice Irish stew and a bit of a dance around in a circle."

The move comes after the resort was turned into a Chilean piazza for A Taste of Coolum last weekend.

The resort was bustling with live cooking stations and costumed Chilean dancers as visitors enjoyed fine wines and degustation dinners.

Mr Palmer said 60 people were working on drawings for the proposed ship which is expected to make its maiden voyage - with an entire section dedicated to promoting Queensland as a tourism destination - from England to North America in 2016.

Mr Palmer also said his team was assessing how they would place the Coolum resort in the marketplace since he acquired it.

Thanks for the updates, Dutch. I find the "Queensland advertising" to be blatantly in poor taste. It's a pity somebody could use a ship like Titanic as a means to advertise a business.Ridiculous.Regards,Mike.

I don't think Titanic ever had any ties with Australia? I could be wrong. She was an Irish built ship, owned by an American, she sailed out of an English port and the only crossing she ever made was over the icy waters of the North Atlantic. There were six Australians aboard when she sank.

I'm not trying to offend anybody from Australia here! But it's as though Clive Palmer is trying to invent new ties between Titanic and his country in order to promote his businesses, and it just feels wrong to me.

If they were going to tie her up next to the Titanic quarter in Belfast then it would be an entirly different story and I'd sort of see the logic.

But owned by a guy who is planning to use the engine room to promote Queensland Tourism? An escort from the Chinese Navy!? Call me old fashioned, but something doesn't seem quite right?

Which is why I predict this idea will sink as quick as the great liner herself!

I agree that the idea to promote Queensland in the Titanic's engine room is one of bad taste.

However, this is probably as close as we'll get to the "recreation" of the Titanic. Usually a vessel like T2 has an active life span of about 20 years, after that it's going to be sold or/and scrapped.

If CP wants to promote Queensland in the engine room, so be it. Please understand, I do not like the idea...but after, let's say, 20 years the vessel could be sold to, e.g., the Titanic museum in Belfast to function as a floating museum and made more accurate to resemble the foundered ship....

I agree that advertising Queensland on this ship would be crass, as well as completely random.

This ship may be being built for all the wrong reasons, and Clive Palmer seems to be missing the point. But hopefully he will go down as the man that was crazy enough to do it, then ultimately the ship will come into the hands of more appropriate management.

It will probably be a financial white elephant, in fact that could be to its advantage because that will quicken its sale to the right people. I predict that James Cameron will buy it.

I agree! Cameron is not quite as crazy as Clive Palmer, but still crazy enough to buy the ship! At that point though, I think he'll make her more accurate. If it was me, I would just strip her of everything from A Deck upwards and re fit her. Then when she starts to look like Titanic, go to work on the rest of the hull!

Note the second link takes you to some diagrams which give a glimpse at the changes.

The most obvious visible changes are the ship is 4 foot wider, and has an extra deck...

Below the waterline is quite different as you'd expect - you can see the profile of it in the pictures, it becomes bulbous in the rear (you'll see what I mean if you look). Also the rudder seems to be a dummy which only goes a bit under the water - I don't even know if it's steerable.

For props there's one central static prop, and two 'azimuth thrusters' - these are steerable units with props and will take the emphasis away from a rudder (however surely you'd still need a functioning rudder - what if you were engineless and drifting?) There will presumably be other thrusters underwater for manoeuvrability.

Also there's a new deck - which will be where C Deck was, pushing C Deck up one level - the 'safety deck' with lifeboats. This will be in the black section of the hull, and I wonder whether they will try to preserve the original look by making this deck hard to see somehow. Either way this new deck will change the profile, and the bridge will sit higher above the forecastle.

While I am in the camp of "I'll believe it when I see it" with this project, I am surprised that we actually got some sort of set of plans out of this. It's definitely farther then any previous attempts have gone with the idea. And I actually rather like some of the changes. Frankly though I think for it to be something marketable, just build modern cabins in place of the old, only keep some key original spaces; the lounge, staircases, and D-deck dining room, and build modern features around those. Make her part Titanic, part Titanic museum, and part modern cruise ship.

Also, get ride of the damned class distinctions. It's silly to impose anything like that on modern travelers, and should this thing ever see the light of day and the blue of water, he'll find it hard sell with such strict rules as he has outlined.

After seeing the drawings of the new ship, and realising that they can't simply make a total replica; and that it's got a whole new deck for starters, the comparison I'm beginning to draw between the replica and the original is a bit like the old and new VW Beetle. The new is clearly trying to be the old, but is also allowed to be something new. It looks like the ship will unavoidably have an element of this whether purists like it or not.

I don't know if the designers have made an explicit decision to re-style as opposed to accurately recreate any of the countless elements of the ship, but one example from the drawing which struck me was that the bridge seemed to be an arc (where the front of the original was flat), and the drawing suggests to me that the whole front of the bridge from wing cab to wing cab may be all enclosed under a roof. Hopefully this is just a preliminary sketch, and not a decision to re-stylize the ship.

Personally I think they'd be mad to make any visual change that they don't have to, particularly to such iconic aspects of it like the bridge. You'd have to be mad to make this ship, but hopefully sanity prevails here!

As someone who would probably have to travel Third Class, Second if I were extremely lucky, I wouldn't set foot on this thing with the rules he's outlined.

Who is he to decide if I'm going to go broke in a casino or not just because I don't make 100K a year, or whatever he considers wealthy enough to afford the casino? Not that I would likely go in the first place, it's just the idea of being restricted from it because I'm not in a certain financial bracket.

Maybe I'm just an overly-sensitive poor person, but there's no way I would travel on a ship belonging to somebody with those ideals. Not to mention the idea that I would be spending my nights "sharing a bathroom with others and sitting at a long table eating irish stew."

So does this mean that I would also not be allowed to roam and tour the entire ship? Sorry, while I like the idea of a Titanic II that stays as faithful as possible to the original, I can't support somebody who thinks this way.

Like I said in an earlier post, I just don't think Clive Palmer will make his money back.

One of the best things about modern-day Ocean travel is that you are permitted to explore the vessel! In fact and in most cases, you are encouraged to do so!

Given that this ship will be quite small when compared to todays Sea Monsters, and given that people are going to want to explore of all things a replica of the Titanic, to impose so many restrictions just won't be good for business!

Having been in and out of UK heritage steam railway preservation for 20 years, it often puzzles me why anyone would want to restore or make a replica of something if it isn't going to be a perfect copy of what once was, for whatever reason; be it health and safely, disabled access, construction materials or as is often the case downright "didnt know" or "cant be bothered to research properly" ignorance.

it would be much better to have a non seagoing perfect fully rigged and fully fitted out Olympic with 1000 ton mock fibreglass engines and boilers, in the Thompson graving dock Belfast, or convert Southampton ocean dock into a wet / dry dock for instance.

The simple answer to that is $$$. Any ocean-going vessel that even slightly emulates the original bearing the name "Titanic" will attract attention and money. Its a novelty, and a seemingly crass one at that unfortunately.Regards,Mike

"it would be much better to have a non seagoing perfect fully rigged and fully fitted out Olympic with 1000 ton mock fibreglass engines and boilers, in the Thompson graving dock Belfast, or convert Southampton ocean dock into a wet / dry dock for instance."

Ocean Terminal is used by modern cruise ships so I doubt that would be an option.I agree that if it is going to be done, build a non-sea going replica to serve as a museum/hotel. It could be made highly accurate, with tweaks to some areas for the hotel portion.

Although part of me would much rather see the money go into the QM or SSUS-actual, original ocean liners.

>" . . . care is being taken not to Disney-fy the>experience.>>and >>"It is a replica, to give people the chance to live through>what the ship was intended for, not to become a fairground>ride.">>and yet the cabins will have "some additions such as>air-conditioning and the internet. >>'Nuff said.>>Art Braunschweiger>TRMA Trustee

I'm inclined to agree. Either do it properly- with the only concessions being to modern safety laws- or don't do it at all.

______________________________________________Mike BullProud member of The Bluebird Project-www.bluebirdproject.com

They build ships a little differently today. Have you notived modern cruise ships don't have expansion joints, even though they imitate a floating tower of Babel? The entire ship is built like a beam of pre-stressed concrete. All of the ship is structural and all parts of the ship are designed to be under constant tension. Steel likes to be kept in tension.

What all that engineering malarky means is some of Titanic's classic lines dissappear under modern designs.

What is important if they do indeed build the Palmer replica, is that the ship closely adheres to the lines of the original, otherwise, what would be the point? Based on what I've read, it sounds as if they are planning on keeping the design close to the original, at least superficially, including some of the public spaces and rooms.

Given the modern way of shipbuilding, I would assume a lot of it will be built in prefabricated sections and then welded together, as modern cruise liners are. What I am really interested in seeing is how far they push things to make it resemble the original, at least above the waterline. For example, will they disguise the radar and modern radio equipment somehow? Will they incorporate rivet patterns to the hull somehow for visual purposes, even though the ship obviously won't be constructed with rivets? How closely will the forecastle, etc. resemble the original? Things like these are what I am interested to see. Time will tell, and it will be interesting to follow if it comes to fruition.

I must be reading different stuff? Well, the bridge will have to angled back for sure. Will the more and modern lifeboats be hidden by a paint job? And I wait for the WSL buff color thing to rear it's head up. We get "crazy" over models or images - whats this going to do?

>Hello Tad,>> I must be reading different stuff? Well, the bridge will have>to angled back for sure. Will the more and modern lifeboats be>hidden by a paint job? And I wait for the WSL buff color thing>to rear it's head up. We get "crazy" over models or images ->whats this going to do? >>Best wishes,> Eric

Why dont they place the life boats a little bit more backwards so they dont stick out of the hull anymore? Then the hull could be closed with easy to remove (black) canvas or plates, so that the life boats arent visible anymore.....that would make the exterior look a whole lot more authentic...

I saw this today on the Wikipedia entry about Titanic II which is a worry...

One point on a list of proposed changes to the new ship include:"* No sheer or camber,<11> unlike the original. Pronounced sheer was a cosmetic feature of ocean liners, intended to add a graceful appearance to the ship, but made construction more difficult and therefore costly.<13>"

Sheer or camber is the way the bow and stern of a ship are raised in the relation to the middle of the ship, so each deck is higher fore and aft.

The Titanic had quite a pronounced camber, and it's a significant part of the ship's aesthetics.

Straightening out the camber would have a great affect on its appearance. Combined with the extra deck, the superstructure will stand a lot taller in relation to the Forecastle and Poop Deck.

To balance this (I bet) they'll make the funnels shorter.

Here we go folks. What other changes are in store?

It's getting back to my analogy of the new vs old VW Beetle or Mini. An updated homage which makes a point of looking like the old, but is entirely new.

Camber is the lateral curvature of the decks, as seen in cross-section. It dates back to wooden sailing vessels. The decks were arched to provide additional strength and also to allow water to run off.

Titanic did not have a pronounced camber. If one compares Olympic ships to contemporary Cunard ships like Lusitania, there is a marked difference in camber.

The early Cunard liners Campania and Lucania had very pronounced cambers. But in the case of Titanic the camber was so neglible as to allow it to be omitted in a model or copy without any noticeable detraction to the ship's aesthetic appearance.

Sheer is the longitudinal curvature of the ships lines, and removing this from a liner like Titanic will seriously detract from its aesthetic appearance.

Regardless of how ships are constructed today, sheer, or at least the appearance of it, could be incorporated into a modern design, but as you point it is an expensive detail.

Infact - the original text I cited from Wikipedia said that the new ship would have no sheer or camber - so back to my initial comment that no sheer would radically alter the look of the ship. Camber isn't such an issue with the Titanic.

Blue Star Line Chairman, Professor Clive Palmer, is pleased to announce the appointment of Steve Hall, one of the worldís foremost authorities on Titanicís exterior and general working arrangements, as Design Consultant and Historian for the Titanic II project.Mr Hall is the co-author of Titanic The Ship Magnificent and Titanic in Photographs which are internationally acclaimed.Mr Hall is a recognised authority on the technical aspects of the original shipís construction and is a renowned visual historian, having studied and researched the Titanic and photographic records for more than three decades.The work carried out by Mr Hall will ensure Titanic II looks as it should, as a modern replica of the original vessel in all her grandeur.Professor Palmer said Blue Star Line continues to be overwhelmed with the national and international response to the Titanic II project.ďThis magnificent vessel is being constructed in memory of the heroic people who worked and sailed on the original ship,Ē Prof Palmer said.ďWe also want to recognise the artists and artisans whose skill, creativity and dexterity has never been fully recognised because of the shipís limited service.ďThis is why we have brought Mr Hall on board, his extensive knowledge of Titanicís construction and finer detail is highly respected the world over.ĒProfessor Palmer announced to the world on April 30, 2012, his intention to build and launch Titanic II in conjunction with leading Chinese shipbuilders, CSC Jinling Shipyard. Professor Palmer has since announced the appointment of Finnish-based Deltamarin to undertake a full review of the Titanic II project and has also released the preliminary plans for Titanic II.Professor Palmer said the project remains scheduled for a 2016 launch date, when Titanic II will sail from China to England before her maiden passenger voyage retraces the original journey.ďIt will be every bit as luxurious as the original Titanic but of course it will have state-of-the-art 21st century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems,Ē Professor Palmer said.ďTitanic II will be the ultimate in comfort and luxury with on-board gymnasiums and swimming pools, libraries, high class restaurants and luxury cabins.Ē

SYDNEY ó Australian billionaire Clive Palmer said Wednesday he will unveil the design and plans for his ambitious Titanic II project in New York with the help of John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline.

The flamboyant Palmer, who announced plans in April to construct the replica Titanic with exactly the same dimensions as its ill-fated predecessor, will hold a gala dinner on December 4 on the retired aircraft carrier USS Intrepid.

Those attending will include the former US president's daughter, his sister Jean Kennedy Smith and New York Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson along with leading US business leaders, Palmer said.

They will be treated to a dinner from the same menu as Titanic passengers on the day it sank on April 12, 1912.

"It will be a chance for the business community of the United States and indeed the world to see the wonderful progress that's been made on our Titanic II project," Palmer said.

"Since we announced our plan in April we've had a huge amount of interest, particularly from people wanting to know how they can secure a booking for the maiden voyage, along with commercial sponsors."

The first voyage remains set for 2016, with the boat due to sail from China, where it will be built, to Southampton in England ahead of her maiden passenger journey to New York.

The new ship will mirror its predecessor's dimensions -- measuring 270 metres long (885 feet), 53 metres high and weighing 40,000 tonnes.

It will have 840 rooms and nine decks and retain the first, second and third-class divisions of the original.

Palmer extended an invitation for James Cameron to sail on the ship, saying the Titanic director had complained there were no Titanic-related experiences left for him.

"Well James, this is something you can do," he said.

The original Titanic, which was built in Belfast, sank on its first trip from Southampton to New York, killing more than 1,500 passengers and crew.

I saw one updated on the official website of Clive Palmer "Blue Star Line"

Steve The Great Hall, will be recommended technique for the construction of Titanic II, and also he will be the chief work inside the ship because he did alot of photographs, plans and other documents with those that if they are done books "Titanic the Ship Magnificent and Titanic in Photographs."

I know that Mr Steve Hall is a great historian as other members of the TRMA

I am happy to know that Steve Hall will be to see and advise that the Titanic II silk almost 1912 copies!

I await news of Steve Hall on this forum to learn a bit more advanced work on the Titanic II.

Blue Star Line Chairman, Professor Clive Palmer, is pleased to announce the appointment of Daniel Klistorner as Interior Design Consultant and Historian for the Titanic II project.

Mr Klistorner will work with Steve Hall, both of whom have previously worked together co-authoring several books on the famous ship including Titanic: The Ship Magnificent and the best-selling Titanic in Photographs, to ensure the ship is almost identical to her predecessor.

Mr Klistorner is the worldís foremost expert on Titanicís passenger accommodations and his research of exacting details has been the key to his comprehensive understanding of Titanicís passenger areas, interiors and fittings. He is a recognised authority in these areas and has provided consultation for several authors, museums, TV documentaries and auction houses.

Professor Palmer said the project remains scheduled for a 2016 launch date, when Titanic II will sail from China to England before her maiden passenger voyage from London to New York.

He said while it will be every bit as luxurious as her namesake, Titanic II will have every modern amenity with 21st century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems.

Both Mr Klistorner and Mr Hall will attend the world launch of Titanic II in New York and the Titanic II dinner in London where they will give a special technical presentation along with Professor Palmer, CSC Jinling Shipyard and Deltamarin.

If this ship were actually in the process of being built (not planned),you would have no problem getting people interested. To be doing a heavy public relations push at this stage sounds more like they are trying to raise money for the project. Everybody has assumed that because Palmer is a zillionaire that he would be footing the bill and that financing for the project was not an issue. If you've ever studied the very rich, they didn't get that way by spending their own money. This almost seems like they may be having problems getting investors. Do you ever see this kind of thing going on when Carnival is building a new liner? We've seen more than our fair share of abortive attempts at creating a second Titanic. From what I've seen so far, I wouldn't bet my rent money on this project either.

You see the appointment of Hall and Klistormer as an indication of something negative. I see it as a positive thing. I do however agree that he is trying to draw maximum media attention for his Titanic II project. This could well be an "ego trip", CP is known to like a lot of attention.

I personally think that the collaboration of Hall and Klistormer indicates an unexpected "seriousness" of this project. It appears CP wants to do it the right way... I wish him good luck with that...

Dutch:I was making no comment on either Hall or Klistorner. If I were making a comment it would be why were only Hall and Klistorner chosen? Everybody who attaches themselves to this project could be risking their reputations. Not so much if it isn't built. But what if the experts are overruled in their advice and the finished ship is a Frankenstein? Their names will be still be attached to it. Who knows? All may go well. But I'm beginning to see see some red flags ascending.

Here's an image from the Bluestarline website (http://bluestarline.com.au) The website isn't giving much away at the moment - just the two pictures of the ship.

We knew that one major difference structurally and visually would be the lack of 'Sheer' - eg - the decks and structure arching upwards at the bow and stern. It's a shame but so be it. The bow is arched upwards which partially compensates, but the stern looks a bit too flat.

I don't know if they plan to make more effort to hide the modern lifeboats - maybe the safety deck could have something like black blinds or something to hide these boats (also, this may sound ridiculous but there appears to be even less lifeboats that the original!!)

Although this picture is hardly going to be the last word on the subject, there are some obvious differences - * No Poop Deck Docking Bridge* Most of the upper deck hardware like vents are missing* There's a large extra deck structure on top of the Officer's Quarters.* Obviously the portholes are completely different.* The funnels look shorter (I suspected that would happen because taking the sheer out would have made the funnels seem even taller so to compensate, and maintain the side-on profile, they've taken height off the funnels.)

LOL! So, is this where Capt. Schettino of the Costa Concordia finally ended up? In that image, the position of the ship relative to Liberty Island puts her well out of the channel and in the shoals around the island!

By this time next week all will be revealed. Clive Palmer is hosting a black tie invitation-only affair aboard the USS Intrepid in New York City, at which he will unveil the deck plans and other details of the new ship. This is the first of six similar events around the world to publicize his new venture. They were originally scheduled for late 2012 but were rescheduled following the hurricane on the east coast of the United States last fall.

You can see the effect of the extra deck and lack of sheer in the profile. Also, it has a more shallow draft (the depth of the ship under the water).

I have a couple of questions for anyone who knows about maritime engineering:

* According to the Wikipedia entry, the new ship will be 65,000 tons, while the original was 46,000 tons. Why is the new ship so much heavier? Because surely

a) modern CAD design, manufacturing techniques, and higher grade steel would enable a rigid shape to be made from less metal, plus b) the use of lightweight materials such as aluminium, plastics and fibreglass on interior fittings and bulkheads, plus c) I'm assuming that the diesel engines would be lighter than the original configuration of boilers and giant piston engines.

How can a ship of roughly the same dimension be so much heavier?

* The proportion of the new ship which is above the waterline is much greater - the draft is more shallow, and it is taller above the water.

The tonnage figures you give are "gross tonnage". They are not measures of weight or displacement. They measure the amount of space within the vessel. The formula for determining the gross tonnage was fairly complicated but it should not be confused with the weight of the vessel. I am also not sure if the formula for determining gross tonnage in 2012 is the same as that used in 1912. It may be a case of comparing apples to oranges.

If you read the details on the ship, the beam is around 105' i think. That extra beam can make a significant difference in underwater volume of displacement and also add to stability. But as Bob pointed out, tonnage is calculated on volume, typically inside volume. It is a very nebulous rule that can be easily manipulated.

In calculating gross tonnage, every 10' cube of internal space is 1 ton, regarless of what's there. That formuula actually works raher well in older ships. If the beam is 105 feet, that explains a lot of the extra displaceement right there. The upper decks won't be superstructure like they were on the original. Everything up to the boat deck will be structural and the lack of sheer is from the entire design acting as a pre-stressed girder. Don't look for an expansion joint.

There should be plenty of space for casinos, spas, or auditoriums. Maybe some onboard parking as well. You can't sail the Titanic unless there's a car aboard

After finally having time to actually go over all this information and familiarize myself more with the man, his venture(s) and other things I too just can't attend this. I was going to have a peek and give a report of this event, but it was/is becoming much too bizarre (even for me) just as a spectator. Ah. I wish them well.Besides,"I'm just a simple Mauretania man..."

What, you got invited and then turned it down. And now your bagging the man 'Palmer' that was going to pay for your evening.There would be thousands around the world that would have loved to have gone.Amazing.

That does not distinguish me from every other person I know that I have spoken to privately who would even comment on the subject (save a theoretical handful and of course those connected with this project). Mr. Smith was the among the first to say anything. You've read this thread and others. I printed a bit about what I thought. Well, I have no problem attaching my name to my opinions. It's what I do. To say otherwise would be fatuous on my behalf and for that I've no time. You're not privy to every to nuance that affected my decision. Nor are you be aware of the reasons I asked the question I posted here (though you easily could guess).

A lot of people "around the world" would like to do a lot of things and that information enters my personal equations in my own way (when and if at all...), as it should. The seat won't be wasted. As I said, I wish them well.

the answer to your question is yes. You and I were going to be at the same table, in fact. Too bad - I was looking forward to meeting you. That aside, none of what follows is intended as a criticism of your decision, just my personal viewpoint.

I doubt even Mr Palmer would disagree that this event, and the other events like it planned around the world, are for the purposes of drawing publicity if not funding toward his project. Nothing wrong with that. I also believe that even the skeptics among us would agree that the concept is intriguing. Whether it becomes a reality, well, we'll have to see. In this case, vision and reality have to go a long way to meet. Either way, I don't see my attendance as an endorsement. If anything, I'm looking forward to the opportunity to learn some specific design and engineering details of the ship, and having a few questions answered. And the historian in me is looking forward to an opportunity that I will never have again, that of sitting down to a faithfully recreated last First-Class dinner aboard the real Titanic - all eleven courses.

I appreciate that. I am sure you will have a very fine time. I'm sorry I wonít be there meet you; if you are close to NYC (I am) perhaps another time.

While the menu was one of several attractions you mentioned (the technical questions etc. being primary), this event is, in sum, just not something I can attend. There were other observations as well which I won't go into at this venue.

***With all due respect - at this point I have edited this paragraph out. It contained VERY ill chosen and poorly worded comments - stupid and irrelevant statements I should never have made and that I regret. I do not want to represent myself in a way that caused the two posts below. I'm not at my best. I am sorry.***

That's rather a pompous way of saying you're too good for something. I don't like that attitude. I'm not trying to start a fight and I don't want to seem rude but when you're in a forum run by a panel of experts and trustees, pompous is the last attitude you want to exhibit.

Anyway, I'd pay good money to go see Titanic II, let alone do as Art says and actually sit in re-creations of the rooms. It may not be perfect, and sure it may be a cash-cow, but it'll be a thrill to walk those decks. Ken Marschall experienced something similar when helping construct the sets of the 1997 film. I'd really like to talk to him some day.

It appears you have elected too believe what youíve read, or hear about Palmer, to influenced your decision to not accept the invitation. What an opportunity youíve missed sir to provide feedback to others on Titanic boards like this with an informed opinion based on knowledge gained through attending the event.You donít know Palmer, neither do I, but have elected to not attend by what others have said or reported. Your attitude is the same attitude to which youíve attributed to Palmer.

If anyoneís hobby interest is blinding them to the fact that it is hard to determine whether a high risk business venture will succeed then I can see why they are not viewing attendance at events as potentially influencing oneís future business reputation. The reality is experts arenít invited to publicity events impartially, their presence is always meant to address the projectís image.

So even a silent visitor will be counted into hindsight statements such as ďthe promising project had been presented before a gathering of expertsĒ. Oneís presence or absence there, coupled with the subsequent success or failure of the project then gives us 4 potential scenarios, only 2 of which are good for oneís business reputation. If youíve got a crystal ball, great, otherwise there is a difficult individual judgment to be made.

A free tour and dinner may look nice to a hobbyist but it is the least of the issues to someone with a degree of status as an expert, donít fail to understand the need for each of the guys to make their own choice here.

Now for my 2 cents worth...I do not have a reputation as an historical expert but I have followed and patronized the modern cruise industry quite a bit. From that position I feel this project faces a tougher path to success than the first Titanic did. This projectĎs difficulties are:

-the only appeal is the gimmick, that will only influence a small portion of cruisers and will not last the 20 years it would take to make a profit on having built the ship-most cruisers go for ports of call and for family or couples vacation time. This project doesnít offer an edge over the competitors in those key areas-no balconies, no big sun deck with a pool. A lack of balconies is regularly held against older ships-the one off design will carry a substantial cost premium-cruise lines with 3 ships struggle financially, a one ship company canít possibly cover the overhead. They canít get the all important attention of agents either-Mr. Palmer may be readily able to pay for building the ship but it will not be able to pay its operating costs when faced with the competition. Look at Carnival and Royal Caribbeanís long flat stock price and moderate dividends to gauge the industryís competitive stresses.

I suggest reading the CruiseCritic.com forums on Seabourn and Windstar over their sell/buy of 3 ships this week. Note the comments on poor profitability and the costs of small operations. Also note that Windstar was bought for $100m in 2007 and after bankruptcy was resold for $39m in 2011, that along with the operating costs was quite a loss for the shareholders.

So far this project is pure publicity; Iíd love to see a replica sail but connecting even my amateur reputation with it at this proposal stage would take some expert thought. We all know the public can be fickle, the business community can be too.

Well, I am wish them a good luck with Titanic II and I am might be on her maiden voyage to give an idea how the near as the original Titanic was. Let the Titanic II take the Titanic a dream to live longer and reach to New York for her!! Keep her legend and memories of lost souls alive as forever!! By way I was made a new artwork of the Titanic II was reached the New York and head back to UK. As see the New York city of the new WTC builds was able be finished by same year as Titanic II in 2016 to 2017

I like it. I hope they don't screen off the new lifeboat area because I think it's the most obvious feature distinguishings it as a modern liner - which is what it is. I think they've done an excellent job in simulating sheer, and also on the bow. Good that it's wider too - also distinguishing.

The only thing that I don't like are the observation windows in the funnels, simply because they stand out too much. The could have put them in the black part of the funnel where they wouldn't be too obvious.

If they build this, I'd love to see it and travel on it - but not first class. I'd be be happy for second or third, although I'm sure when it's not cruising that it will be open for guided tours of all the ship.

What a brave and remarkable business idea this is. How can it not be success?

It will happen. This isn't just something that's being talked about anymore. That much was clear from the presentation. Palmer has engaged Deltamarin as the naval architects; this is the same firm that designed the Oasis and Celebrity ships for Royal Caribbean, and the Disney ships. The latter connection is appropriate as there will be some artful if not Disney-esque design features to conceal a modern vessel within the confines of one from a century earlier. In the 3D graphic rendering, for example, you can see the satellite communication domes concealed within the forward two funnels. The bridge is another; as most have seen the Navigating Bridge will be designed to period appearances, while the actual functioning Bridge will be in the Wheelhouse area, widened by necessity. (The observation galleries may not happen due to their detraction from appearances.

Certainly there will have to be compromises with period accuracy, the lifeboats for one. The provision of bathrooms will have to be another. (I don't think a thousand of you would be willing to share a handful of bathtubs). On the other hand I don't believe these marriages of modernity and history will cause the concept to fail, that being the experience of what it was like to sail aboard Titanic. My opinion, admittedly, has changed in this regard. I once held the firm belief that recreating the ship would never work because it would have to be an all-or-nothing proposition, that unless you had full class restrictions and all the discomforts and inconveniences along with the luxuries, one could not realistically experience what it was like. Now, I believe it will be possible to re-live the ship without having to re-live the personal and class aspects. I'll be there. It should be quite the experience. (And for those who don't know, Daniel Klistorner has been brought on board as the principle design consultant for the interior spaces and accommodations.)

Eric, you missed a very enjoyable evening. A very memorable dinner, some great entertainnment (the Little River Band, among many) and some good company. Your seat went unfilled; you would have shared a table with me, Steve Hall, Cathy Akers-Jordan, and John Roslyn,the owner of the Titanic exhibitions. Charles Haas and Jack Eaton were there (authors of Triumph and Tragedy) and many others. Margaret Brown's great-granddaughter was a delight to talk to. I hope to see her on board some day.

I'm wondering why they decided to not replicate the sheer on the new version? Cost? Structural reasons? Not being picky... but I think that's one "subtle" area that greatly adds to the realism... not to mention one of the factors that gave the original such graceful lines.

On some of the other forums I visit that have topics about this ship, including those for the Ship Simulator games (which I would quite enjoy seeing Titanic II perhaps make an appearance in ) and Youtube comments for the Blue Star Line's Youtube videos, an interesting idea was raised regarding the lifeboats:

It is understood that Titanic II needs to keep its lifeboats showing, particularly when at sea, as a safety precaution in case hypothetical doors were to fail. (I've also read the earlier sentiment that the lifeboats help the ship distinguish herself from the ship she's based on.) The idea has been suggested, however, that perhaps garage door-like mechanisms, or a tarp or something in case weight restrictions are a major concern, could be setup where they hide the new lifeboats while the ship is in port, then removed to reveal the lifeboats after the ship leaves port? The thing that makes this idea interesting to me is that it reminds me of how lifeboats 1 and 2 were raised above collapsible boats C and D when in port for visibility reasons, and then hung over the side when at sea to be prepared for a man overboard situation.

Now that that suggestion has been donated, I have three questions of my own:

1) Will Titanic II's historical lifeboats 1 and 2 be raised over historical collapsible lifeboats C and D when in port, and lowered back down when at sea, as occurred on the original Titanic?

2) Could the historical lifeboats theoretically be operable? That is, will those lifeboats have their sails and paddles, even for the boats covered by canvas? It would be a very interesting situation if those boats ever needed to be used to say the least, but it also raises the interesting idea that Titanic II would have a lot more lifeboats than needed, and making a severe list much less of a problematic scenario for her!

3) Will it be possible to get Titanic II an "RMS" prefix and Liverpool as her port of registry, even if only in honorary terms?

It seems to me as if the Titanic II render might be incomplete or tentative, Paul. In fact, there are some changes from the image you posted to the website's 360-degree render alone! (Namely the navigation lights). My guess is that the current full-ship render is meant more to communicate the general idea of how the ship will look, because the ship's render also doesn't have notice boards, vertical ladders, the awning that connects the roof of A deck to the aft mast, the boat deck mystery box, etc., and I wouldn't think that those details violate modern regulations. In fact, I don't see the mast or stern navigation lights on the render! To reiterate, I don't think the site's render is meant to be taken too analytically; my guess is that it's probably moreso to stress the differences between the Titanic II and its predecessor (though take everything I just said with a grain of salt, because I'm just a spectator throwing around a wild guess).

I am very glad you enjoyed yourself. I have been looking forward to your "report" - thank you. I knew Doug Willingham and Helen Benzinger were to attend along with TIS and THS members; James Cameron and Celine Dion and were also claimed to be attending, not just invited, which sounded ratherÖoptimistic, and did give me pause.

While I don't mind being "odd man out", the one-sided nature of the responses to my queries, from at least three countries (total silence and then several "no's!"), was noted. As a previous poster pointed out, it can be hard to ascertain some things, sometimes. Other times, not.

Admittedly, I only know a very small handful of authors and researchers. I am told "...everyone under the sun..." was invited but, really, what do I know of Titanic? R.M.S. Mauretania, some, yes.

From what I understand and read in groups both private and public, from the folks I do know, not (m)any consider this venture remotely serious (at least as described, to be fair); it is generally regarded as financially unsustainable; a morbid and bizarre venture (to be summary) undertaken by an (erratic?) eccentric and perhaps more smoke than fire. I certainly do not claim to know. Time will tell to be sure.

These things, and others, played their part in my decision to pass on this event. In sum, I could not in good conscience "raise a glass" to a venture I ultimately thought flawed or improper, no matter the menu or company. That is my feeling alone; I claim the right to hold it and I will not defend it - while making no judgements on others opinions. I too initially wanted to attend.

I am of course pleased a nice evening, presentation and meal was enjoyed by all who attended this event and I wish all well.

PS: Bridge configurations and operable/faux 1912 lifeboats (I can't see bothering to lower and raise these boats for the "average" potential passenger would not be aware or even care) seem a lesser distraction than the apparently missing aft docking bridge and new helicopter landing pad. Some online are concerned with mock rivets. If the "bar" of this "recreation" is lowered to include a heliport by allowing the removal of that docking bridge (no small feature to be sure; and in an area that physically and symbolically represents the final refuge of so many of the doomed at the end), does the presence of simulated rivets or the raising and lowering what are essentially faux lifeboats and perhaps flags even matter with regard to what I might describe as proportion of priority? I would have agree that the renderings are little more than just that - the bridge windows as shown, to mention just one thing, must be angled for SOLAS, no?

Edit to add: Cruise Critic (and World of Cruising magazine) has yet another take on this project. The point they make about size has been noted elsewhere; the rest - I can't say:

What's curious to me is how some give the impression that attending a dinner like this would somehow taint their reputation or make them an object of derision should this project not come off. (Eric, that's a general observation, not aimed specifically at you.) The possibility of a fully recreated Titanic, even if its success is not assured, merits legitimate interest, as far as I'm concerned. For heavens sake, people flock to the Titanic exhibition in Branson and that recreates only a fraction of the real thing. I'm not saying anyone has to jump on board or support the project, but why not just take a wait-and-see approach?

No argument that legitimate questions have been raised as to its financial viability and other aspects. But I would also point out that anyone attending the dinners in NY, London, or elsewhere would have had the opportunity to put those questions to Mr Palmer directly in private conversation later in the evening. I did, and consequently am better informed for it.

I saw this on another site. A completely different point of view again on this subject - this from the descendant of a survivor (the great-grandson of Trimmer Walter Francis Fredricks):

"...I attended the promo at the Grand Cafť on Tuesday and was astonished to hear prospective passengers could dress up and act as characters from the doomed original voyage. If that isnít bad taste then I donít know what is. It seems that this new ship wonít be a full size memorial to all those who sailed upon her predecessor (as it is being billed), but rather a themed playground for the wealthy. I am a descendant of a survivor, but even those without a direct connection to the disaster can surely see this is wrong. When asked why he is building Titanic II, Clive Palmer arrogantly responds Ďbecause I caní. I say the question should not be Why he is building it, but more so Should he be building it. And respectfully and morally the answer to that question must be no. There is a new online petition that has recently been started, calling for a stop to any plans for a Titanic II. I would invite anyone who believes like me that this whole affair is inappropriate to sign it.

Oh, please. A petition to stop Palmer from building the ship? I don't see anyone protesting the Titanic exhibitions and pressuring them to shut down. By that an extension of that reasoning, out of respect we shouldn't be allowed to tour the Egyptian tombs, they shouldn't have dug up Pompeii and should have left every notable shipwreck that's ever been raised on the bottom. I realize there's a difference, but not much, in my opinion.

As far as a "playground for the wealthy", on what basis does he make that claim, when Palmer's company has yet to release any information about prospective fares?

People can sign all the petitions they want, but does Mr Fredericks seriously believe that Mr Palmer is going to shelve the whole project on the basis of it?

Opinions are opinions, everyone has them. I've expressed mine and anyone else is free to express theirs. I went to the dinner out of a desire to see for myself what it was all about. A number of other prominent members of the Titanic community were there as well, for the same reason. None were there to cheer Palmer on or celebrate Titanic's recreation, except by partaking in what was offered. I will wait to see what happens, like the others I met, although personally I do wish it success.

Here's one quote from that article: "At about 55,000 gross tons and carrying a maximum occupancy of 2,435, Titanic II will have the lowest passenger-to-space ratio of any cruise ship in the industry by some 25 percent. Not any luxury ship, but any mainstream ship. At 128,500 tons and a capacity for 4,724 passengers, Carnival Breeze, one of the most cramped mega-ships, offers more room to roam." In other words - taken at face value - it's completely impractical and you might as well just forget it and make a ship of a modern design.

My questions are: Is the ship financially viable, and if not, what's the worst that can happen?

For starters, surely Palmer has done the market research and believes that it will be financially viable. Maybe he's figured how much of a loss it might be but is prepared to absorb that and use it for knock-on promotional value.

I personally err on the side of thinking it could be viable, for at least a medium term period. I think a lot of casual people would choose it instead of an average cruise ship (just because they loved the movie!), and there would be a huge stream of people from around the world who want their turn on the ship, and it would take a number of years to exhaust this demand.

But also there's one aspect the Cruise Critic perspective doesn't account for: unlike most 'normal' ships, Titanic II will possibly make as much money being stationary for weeks on end in ports as it would on the sea. During these periods, rather than spending money on running costs, it will be earning a lot doing walking tours of the interior, and the demand for this will be extremely high for several years before plateauing down to a reliable stream. It will be a museum of Edwardian life, but one you can move from city to city.

And worst case scenarios? It haemorrhages money for years then Palmer sells it cheaply. It will either end up in the hands of a Dubai-based billionaire, or more preferably, a consortium led by James Cameron. One thing is it definitely won't be scrapped - even once it's 20-30 years old and considered too old for service, it's iconic shape and interiors will guarantee that someone will want to have it.

As for building a replica of the grand ship, I'm all for it. I love to see history come to life and be a part of it whenever I can. I don't feel it would be disrespectful to those who lost their lives that fateful morning, but to keep their memory alive in some way, and not to mention have a glimpse(even if just a small one)of what it would have been like to walk the decks of history.

"...I say the question should not be Why he is building it, but more so Should he be building it. And respectfully and morally the answer to that question must be no."'

Interesting to hear these points of view. As I see it, there are two different things. One is the ship itself, and the other is this reliving of the past through dressing-up and role playing.

Titanic role-playing has been going on for years, with many other groups having similar "living historian" activities, none more extreme than the American Civil War recreationsists. However, I have to admit I find this Titanic disaster obsession not only macabre but distasteful also. Perhaps people choose to overlook or forget that the Victorian end Edwardian times were fine times if you were wealthy and from the right background, but not at all pleasant if you were at the other end of the social scale. The fact that one of the first Lifeboats of the Titanic was lowered with just 12 first class passengers in it, while over 50 3rd class children died -- their parents looking on helplessly -- is something to observe when considering Victorian and Edwardian values. That makes me shudder. That's why I find it bad taste. It's almost like these reenactees mourne those values and hold events in honour of them.

That aside, I honestly can't see it being a commercial success if the ship's owner insists on dress-up scenarios for every cruise.

As for re-building the ship, for me that's just recreating a thing, an antique, and you can seperate that from the disaster. I think it will be fascinating to see a ship of that design in real life, just to get the impression of what was like back then. And I'd like to go on it too, across the atlantic -- but not dressed up!

Even though it's merely a background image, the ship's lettering, right down to how the letters lean, is spot-on! I must say, the research consultants did a great job of remembering the details, and the engineers did a great job of listening to them!

Anyone else noticed that the AlJazeeraEnglish news video just linked shows the eventual destination, New York, as somewhere in North Carolina? It is rather funny. Talk about avoiding ice by going a bit south!

One thing never ceases to amaze me. I never would have in my wildest dreams 50 years ago when my interest in Titanic was sparked and my subsequent interest in all the Classic Liners flourished that millions would have ANY interest in them. In the 70's when I would mention my hobby most People looked funny at me and said "you are interested in what?" and as much as dismissed me as some kind of nut. Which by the way I will not deny. Bill Young

I know Cunard currently thinks that Titanic II is being offensive to those who were lost in the original's sinking, but I wonder how they'll react once this vessel is actively being built, not to mention sailing? Will they nostalgically retaliate? We already have a battle of the "2"s on the horizon between Queen Mary 2 and the Titanic II!

>I know Cunard currently thinks that Titanic II is being>offensive to those who were lost in the original's sinking,>but I wonder how they'll react once this vessel is actively>being built, not to mention sailing? Will they nostalgically>retaliate? We already have a battle of the "2"s on the horizon>between Queen Mary 2 and the Titanic II!

We are talking Cunard, the company who ripped "Southampton" away from the rear of their vessels and angered a lot of folk. So they have no reason to talk.

There's quite a few companies and organizations I'd like to hear comments from with regard to Titanic II. For example, what do you think the International Ice Patrol thinks of Titanic II? This is, after all, a modernized replica of the ship whose sinking led to the founding of the organization! Something tells me that the IIP may pull out all the stops in terms of making sure that she stays safe from ice....

Though seriously, it does look quite interesting. The general arrangement of the upper passenger decks is similar, though with a few obvious and perhaps necessary changes (escape stairs in #1 and 2 boiler casings, lifts extending up to the Boat Deck among others). Still no indication what the mysterious box above the officers' quarters is - it doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Hmm... am I reading these plans wrong? It seems as though they've given 269 as the LBP rather than LOA. The gague goes up to about 290m from bow to stern, but zero starts at the sternpost and 269 is around the point the keel starts to incline under the bow. I'm not any sort of expert but... help?

"Preliminary" is the operative word here. I believe these are indeed the GA plans shown to the public, and you can see that these are by no means finalized. For example, these plans use the original Titanic's profile to show where class divisions are, and these seem to be, as the date of "12.07.2012" indicates, from a point when they expected to use to asimuth thrusters in combination with a central propeller and rudder. The modern lifeboat arrangement has also changed between the design of these plans and the 3D render.

Also showing that these designs are preliminary are the several questions to the company written on them, such as how to handle the private bathroom issue on the lower deck rooms, and what to do with the engineer's promenade. The bridge has also been left largely blank.

Well looking at the plans i would have to say that the mysterious box is just machinery for the lifts. As all ready said the lifts now go to the boat deck, forward of those lifts just before the first funnel is another set of lifts that look like they are for the crew. there is also an emergency stairs located there too. So i think they just made one large box to store the machinery for the lifts instead of two different boxes.

Looking at the preliminary plans, and comparing them with the plans of the original Olympic class liners, it also gives the answer to why this Titanic II is taler above the waterline, as was asked before. There's an extra deck aded; the safety deck between deck C and D.Although I highly doubt it, this could also explain why it is estimated so much heavier.

To essentially counteract the extra deck, and acting as the reason for the Titanic II's reduced draft, the orlop deck has been removed, largely because Titanic II does not use steam engines, so they don't need that space, which was mostly used for boiler and engine casings.

I find those funnel alterations a slightly lesser "concern" than the loss of the entire aft docking bridge. Maybe it will return. You know, with that helipad in its place - it is like the "Titanic" in Raise the Titanic. Remember? That large scale model is now looking spot on!

the docking bridge no longer serves a practical purpose. That helipad, on the other hand, now does! Personally, I'm incredibly glad that they found a place for the helipad that doesn't interrupt the ship's rigging!

Yes, I kind of guessed that I just thought the last refuge of the doomed would be best left intact for several reasons, accuracy and respect among them. That it is no longer functional - that logic could remove a lot. Fake rivets are not functional and would seem a lesser concern by far. The compass platform really needed? Cargo cranes etc? Crows nest?Wondering when the bridge windows will be angled, as they must.In recent renders there seems to be first class china in a third class cabin? I'm not sure - I don't collect china.

The issue here is not the practicality of these items. The ship needs a helipad in order to allow for emergency evacuation and to remove passengers who are too sick to be treated aboard. The best place to put a helipad where it won't interrupt the ship's iconic rigging is right behind where the aftmost cable meets the poop deck. However, the docking bridge might get in the way in this spot (while the aft flag pole can be easily removed) if a helicopter actually needed to use it. Thus, the need to remove the docking bridge. It's nothing personal against the docking bridge, it's just that the docking bridge could become a hazard, and there's no better place for the helicopter pad.

The rigging is "iconic", but the aft docking bridge, an officers station used to warp the true Titanic into port, a large identifiable structure visible from a distance...undeniably among the last places the lost desperately sought final refuge at the horrific end of their lives...is not iconic but dispensable?

The QM2 seems to be doing alright without a helipad; a 'Low Hover" area for "basket lifts", yes. What other features are going to get in the way, exterior or interior, and be moved aside or discarded entirely?

Why retain twin bunks in third class? Couples crossing would not be able to share a bed according to BSL press materials; would this two bunk system be popular? A twin bed, here or in the U.K., is at most 39 inches width (probably 36 inches), yes? The cabin interior doesn't show, unless you are in the cabin. I believe most couples, on this "grandest" of vessels, would want to rest together as they would anywhere. At the same time, some, or all, cabins will have separate bathrooms? This seems an odd equation, no?

It could seem to some that respect for the dead, the events of that terrible evening, and obviously accuracy, are taking a further and further back seat in this "replica" project, or "near replica" as I see it being called these last weeks.

Leonard Peskett would almost certainly agree that a ship is designed from the inside out - its final external appearance dictated by the function and purpose of the build. In this instance, a final (but not immutable) exterior is being loosely retrofitted with a very different interior object in mind, machinery aside, resulting in ever increasing compromises from the publicity materials I am seeing.

Both of those Galas were simply disrespectful and embarrassing, speaking in my name only, and YMMV, although I am clearly not in any minority in this opinion as my correspondence indicates. The second clip, the one I posted, showed this clearly. I find it so anyway. The online silence is interesting - at least on public messages boards. I simply can't believe you all don't belong to the same private boards I do, where this whole endeavor is met with ridicule from all quarters of the industry, historical to technical. The bulk of my comments about the gala videos can be read elsewhere for anyone interested.

Regards, Eric

FWIW:I just went through the Deltamarin website on a whim. I searched their site - I was unable to find any reference to Titanic II, Clive Palmer or anything to do with this Titanic II project? Searched its archives too and back a few years. Nothing. Anyone else find anything related on the Deltamarin site? Wouldn't you think they would be "proud" of this association? Can you find anything on their site? The Deltamarin gentleman who was at NY's Gala is...Director of Sales?I can not find much from CSC Jinling Shipyard apart from news reports saying such and such? Can anyone point me to a proper CSC Jinling website?In looking at the BSL Titanic II E-book, I notice basic punctuation errors - is the name of the Deltamarin Sales Rep misspelled?? The World Project Director, Ms. Baljeet Singh, to whom Steve Hall and the entire team report to ensure the "...recreate(ion of) the opulence and splendor of the original ship..." (according the the BSL E-book); she makes all final decisions about all aspects and is...a business woman and lawyer with experience in copyright and intellectual property?

I DO NOT say these firms are not involved - I just think it odd they don't mention the project.

I did not take Colin's post that way. (Edit - I got two "West(s) confused (Bill and Colin) re Gala commets - very sorry). In any event, I thank you for your addition. I think many points in this thread are of interest.

Not annoyed Mike. I'm just saying to Eric that I believe he has made his point. He doesn't care for the rebuilding of Titanic.If Eric has concerns about specific aspects of the project, perhaps post them up on their Facebook page. I doubt the Blue Star Line reads forums like this.http://www.facebook.com/BlueStarLine

The lack of replies would to me indicate that no one here particularly cares about Palmer‚Äôs venture.

Thanks. I am not a "FaceBooker" - among other thing of importance the tremendous incidences of image theft leading to books with "problems" that I hear about is enough to keep me away. I know of well over a hundred of stolen images appearing all over the place online and in print. People in the project are members read here and at other sites. And I find the discussion interesting.

I post here and another site and then pvt. boards. I believe this is of interest to this community. I note you point about a lack of responses and am forced to agree.

Eric, Mike, Colin‚Ä¶Only my ten cents worth.The two young chaps that knocked out the videos I‚Äôve seen on Youtube were simply sharing their experience at the dinners. They weren‚Äôt made by, authorized by or sanctioned by Palmer‚Äôs company. It was about ‚Äėtheir‚Äô experience. And that‚Äôs the way I simply see it.As for the actual project, I remain skeptical (like most) until I see the keel laid.All we are essentially getting at present is a PR campaign.

I don‚Äôt see any problems with the videos of the different dinners. As someone said, it was just their view of the night. I think it was generous of them to upload and share their experience.From what I‚Äôve read Eric, you had the opportunity to attend one of them. You elected not to. I would value your opinion re these dinners more if you had actually attended one and provided first-hand observations.

>I know Cunard currently thinks that Titanic II is being>offensive to those who were lost in the original's sinking,>but I wonder how they'll react once this vessel is actively>being built, not to mention sailing? Will they nostalgically>retaliate? We already have a battle of the "2"s on the horizon>between Queen Mary 2 and the Titanic II!

I very much doubt it. Titanic is a word that sells. Mention the word to just about anyone who has the slightest clue about popular western culture and they will at least of heard of it, and probably know that it sank.

As far as Cunard goes, well, it would need at least a semi-educated person interested in history to have heard of Lusitania, Cunard's most famous ship. It doesn't sell mugs and T-shirts -- or tickets. Possibly Britannia, could be rebuilt and run cheaply enough and do coastal cruises as opposed to Atlantic crossings! I could see that working.

The main difference beetween olympicclass/white star, and cunard with lusy and, maury, are that these ships where built on gouvermentfunding in exchange for wartime use, while white star funded their own ships.

Not to mention that we all know Britannic was exproited (? Correct spelled ?) For wartime use, and also falled into the same mainstream shadow like lusy.

Probably since this happed during wartime and that this might be something one could expect?

Hi SteveMe, and I'm sure everyone else here, would love to read some words from you about this new ship. You and Daniel Klistorner are the only direct links between it and the TRMA community.

There's been speculation back and forth and some overly negative and positive opinions spouted on this thread - but you've got first-hand insight.

There are obvious questions we'd all like answered, though I realise perhaps you're not at liberty to discuss certain aspects right now. But - anything you are able to contribute at the moment would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Steve. I found the video interesting.The guy is obviously some young lad so excited to have attended the dinner. His exuberance and excitement is clearly apparent.To date....I have heard nothing negative from people I know who attended. In fact quite the opposite. All I've heard is in the positive.

I decided to start a new sub-thread here, since the previous chain is getting unorganized in how long it's gotten....

So to start off, I found something interesting after I've started doing a fair deal of research on Titanic II:

It's been stated that Titanic II's modern lifeboats will have a capacity of 250 people each. The rendering and Cyril Codus's drawing of the ship show 18 lifeboats, one RHIB rescue boat, and four life raft canisters per side. Additionally, the preliminary plans to Titanic II state that a possible feature of the ship might be to perform harbor excursions or even tendering using the replica (historical) lifeboats.

From this, Titanic II will have a lifeboat capacity of 4,500 people, not counting the rescue boats and life rafts. Assuming the replica lifeboats keep their historical capacity (1,148 people), that number increases to 5,648. Even assuming that the rescue boats only hold four people each and the life rafts only hold six people each, Titanic II's boats and rafts would still have a total capacity of 5,704 people if her situation ever became dire!

I have to say the one thing that esthetically bothers me more than anything else per say is the aparent thicker height of the counter stern section. I have always admired that counter stern on the Olympic Class greatly . The loss of that look at the stern really would turn me off. It would be like cutting the tail fins off an early '60's Cadillac and then raising the trunk. One Mans Opinion. Sincerely , Bill Young

I understand your points William. However, what is the alternative. They have inserted an extra deck which creates the additional height.The only way around this would be to make the ship approx. 30' ft longer to get the angles. Maybe make the well decks slightly longer. I would not be surprised if these plans we've seen are 'not' the final ones.Rebuilding this ship would be a logistical nightmare. So one has to cut the guys designing it some slack.Sending the BSL constructive comments or alternatives couldn't hurt. Whether they accept them or reply to messages is obviously another story.

According to the vlog linked below, someone at the Blue Star Line (who cannot be named) has indicated that they're changing the stern design (among a few other parts of the design) after they've heard the negative feedback regarding how fat it is.

I have not been back to that site since I posted they had no mention of the project. Have any contracts been signed yet? Any other updates? I am not really following this anymore - perhaps discussion has moved to FaceBook (not a member) for those interested TRMA members who are still following the progress? Last I heard was mention of some tank tests.

Maybe we should see who actually attended these dinners. If BSL had supposedly asked every man and their dog.....I'd like to see who actually attended.

I know of several who couldn't make it because their budget wouldn't allow travel; while some had been attending the dinners in December, but couldn't make it in Feb., being it coincided with another function elsewhere.

THE Mission to Seafarers‚Äô global maritime welfare charity has been commissioned to write and deliver a prayer of remembrance and blessing to the crew, passengers and engineers who will sail on the replica cruise ship Titanic II.

Blue Star Line of Australia, led by billionaire business tycoon Professor Clive Palmer, has designed the new ship which will be built in China. It is an almost exact replica of the historic Belfast-built passenger liner Titanic. All new modern safety features will be included in the Titanic II design and lifeboat requirements will meet strict international standards.

Professor Palmer said: ‚ÄúAll of us stand in awe of the courage of people who stood on the deck as the ship went down in 1912 and sang hymns, which reminds us of their faith in God and what it meant; and we need to have faith again I think, in what we can do in our lives.‚ÄĚ

Canon Huw Mosford, who wrote the prayer, says: ‚ÄúWe are proud to contribute to the Titanic II project with Blue Star Line. Together we ask for a blessing for those who will travel on and work aboard the ship which sets sail from Southampton to New York on her maiden voyage in 2016.‚ÄĚ

Indeed, this is the part that I am least looking forward to about Titanic II: the media.

You KNOW that if there's so much as a 10-second delay in giving a command on her maiden voyage because a crew member needed to have an order clarified, every news site on the Internet and in print will have "Titanic II Almost Sinks" emblazoned on their front pages in as big of a font as they can muster.

As we say in the Netherlands; 'Een brutaal mens heeft de halve wereld' (A bold person owns half the world), I decided to send an email to the Blue Star Line. I wanted to know if there are already any final plans for Titanic II, and if they perhaps want to share them, so some people might want to make a model from those plans. This is their answer:

>Dear Marco,>>Thank you for your email and interest in Titanic II.>>We have a number of plans under development, but we are unable to disclose details at this stage.>>Future developments will be posted on the website. >>>TEAM BLUE STAR LINE>L8 380 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000>GPO Box 1538 Brisbane QLD 4001>P +61 7 5449 3487 | F +61 7 3832 2021>E info@bluestarline.com.au

It's April, which means, according to multiple news sources, construction on Titanic II is to start this month, now that the shipyard has (reportedly) prepared its facilities to construct a 270-meter ship.

I wonder if Steve Hall will visit the ship in the shipyard while she's being built? I have a silly mental image of him walking about a partly completed Titanic II with blueprints rolled under one of his arms as if he were Thomas Andrews.

Considering today's date and the posting of video #3, one might expect to hear something of this coming news in 6 days or so. Deltamarin has finally added a blog to their site which briefly mentions reviewing plans for safety as well.

A miscellaneous thought that's popped into my head recently is that Deltamarin has previously designed ships with unusual horns, namely the Disney cruise ships, which have horns that can play melodies when blown. With that thought, I started to wonder if Titanic's triple-toned whistle could be used as a horn in this day and age?

That is, Titanic's two real (as opposed to dummy) whistles of three tones each are less than 200 meters apart, would sound simultaneously, and it seems that the consensus from the aforementioned thread is that Titanic's triple-toned whistles would give a set of frequencies that all fall within the 70-200 Hz limit and are different from one another by more than 10Hz.

I asked Deltamarin if Titanic II might use recreations of the original whistles as a horn, and they responded today, saying that it is too early in the design process to think about such small details, "But that would be cool, wouldn't it!"

#49031, "RE: Things Look Like They Are Starting To Happen."In response to Reply # 147

Well I can see 1 upside and 1 downside, The upside being smaller is a plus in my book I hate those large ships,Serving on CVN65 myself bigger is not always better.The advantages are smaller more 1 to 1 attention(I hate crowds anyway)being able to go to smaller less populated ports that the BIG boys cant get into.It just being their is a floating museum so to speak sitting dockside itself is a draw.Dockside tours $$. Who here would pay a few bucks to just walk around for a few hours on her if you did not have the cash to actually sail somewhere on her?

The bad I don't like the class system as said before If I pay to go sail on her I want to see the decor in all its splendor otherwise whats the point? What draw would it be for someone only to buy a 3ed class ticket so we can live like the poor did,I'm already poor I know that feeling,I want to see what it was like to be Rich for at least 1 day.

I do however feel like a dress code should be standard in certain placesNot necessarily period class but I would hate to see someone in sneakers and cut off jeans on the grand staircase or 1st class dining room. the recreations I am mixed about their are plenty of civil war reenactments and more died their than on the titanic,they don't close roads every time someone dies.or airports at every plane crash life goes on. Id rather people remember what happened than forget. Thanks for reading time will tell if she is actually built.

TITANIC II PROJECT DEVELOPMENTBlue Star Line Pty Ltd Chairman Professor Clive Palmer has announced the shipping company has signed a contract with Deltamarin for the project development phase for the Titanic II project.

Blue Star Line has undertaken the task of building Titanic II, a replica of the original RMS Titanic, which is scheduled to sail from Southampton to New York on her maiden passenger voyage in 2016.

Titanic II, a full scale version of the original ship, is being designed by the Finland-based Deltamarin and will be built by leading Chinese shipbuilders CSC Jinling Shipyard, which since 1996 has built vessels for customers from more than 20 countries.

Professor Palmer said the new contract with Deltamarin was signed this month and covers a detailed schedule of events including the commencement of construction and the keel laying.

ďThe scope of work for the contract includes the establishment of project steering committees and a management team,Ē he said.

ďDeltamarin will be responsible for coordinating the various parties involved in the project including the shipyard, architects, interior designers and operations managers.Ē

Professor Palmer said Deltamarin will undertake a full review of the Titanic II project to ensure the vessel will be compliant with all current safety and construction regulations.

While every bit as luxurious as the original, Titanic II will have every modern amenity along with 21st century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems.

I am also heavily satisfied with Deltamarin's reply to my question about how Titanic II's design will minimize the threat of rogue waves:

"Rogue waves are carefully considered in the design. We have a good understanding of the North Atlantic wave conditions as we have e.g. all the data collected by QE2 of all her voyages. But first of all the hull of Titanic II will be higher (additional safety deck) and seakeeping characteristics will be carefully studied, simulated and tested. Modern flare will be applied even though the stem will be as per the original design."

As I think over remarks like this, I've become convinced that given the choice between Titanic II and a commercial passenger jet, Titanic II will be the safer option for crossing the Atlantic!

>"As I think over remarks like this, I've become convinced>that given the choice between Titanic II and a commercial>passenger jet, Titanic II will be the safer option for>crossing the Atlantic!">>101 years later and peoples faith in technology has not>changed. >A key difference is that icebergs were a widely known threat in 1912. With the International Ice Patrol having never lost a single vessel to listen to it in 100 years, they simply aren't nearly as much of a phantom hazard anymore. Rogue waves are probably more akin now to what icebergs used to be, and rogue waves are being specifically taken into account with Titanic II's design, along with ship-ship collisions and so on.

As for having way too much faith in technology, I agree that humanity could use another reminder of its true place; the issue is that they certainly wouldn't pay Titanic II any serious attention if it sank, because the general public doesn't realize that she is using the best technology available to avoid virtually any kind of disaster.

Britannic was also used to name a ship after the original.30 people where chrushed by drifting into the propellor...

So as the moral aspect, I do find your argument alittle bit thin, regarding to the history.With that said, we all know that Titanic was meant to transport alot of people with hopes and dreams for a better future, and would have been forgotten, like Olympic at the scrapyard around 1935, along with Olympic.

Did you just respond to Dutch's #0 post from Fri Jun-01-12? I agree, that is easier then reading the whole thread. As far as I know, no contracts have been signed. Titanic was not fully forgotten - the various films and many editions of ANTR show this, apart for the seemingly yearly attempts to find her in the 70's with Grimm etc and Nat Geo in the first place. It was the gold illustrated edition of ANTR from 1976 that helped my interest along, although The Only to Cross started it all for me. Then there is its appearance in related films, Twilight Zones/Outer Limits, Raise the Titanic, books...The Time Bandits even - so no, I don't think one can say she was generally forgotten until 1985.

Yes, my response was to the first posting Indeed youre correct, the movie, a night to remember from 1959, and so on, im sorry that my point seemed to be somehow misunderstood, in means of forgotten, as I meant that the massive focus that Titanic became a subject to exploded after 1985, since the wreck was found.

The other half off my point of forgotten, was meant to be a comparison to Olympic, if Titanic never sunked.

Yes, it is true that the loss of Titanic and Lusitania affected the way we think of those ships in general. How would Olympic's performance be remembered? What would Lusitania look like cruising to the Bahamas? Would the Mauretania have a more substantial place in the collective history than she does already? And yes, after 1985 and then again after 1996/97 film there was a huge frenzy that could seem to obliterate anything else at the time. Now we head to the Lusitania anniversary in 2015, the related Mauretania books that come with that and a blip for the Empress in 2014 (hopefully more). Then the 100th for Britannic and then Carpathia's 100th...after that? Well, by then this supposed T2 will be entering its 3rd year.

Had neither Titanic or Lusitania been lost, at least as far the ship-loving public is concerned, I believe they certainly would have still have been highly regarded, and rightfully so; they were the premier ships of their respective companies during the immediate pre- and post-WW1 period just as the Queens were a bit later on. Absent the Titanic disaster and the wartime loss of Lusitania, I suspect the initial Cunard pair would have gotten more mention in print if for no other reason than the giant technological step forward they represented, as well as the longstanding Blue Ribband record the Mauretania, a feat which has still not been equaled. (Perhaps if Lusitania had survived the war, there may have been some greater effort to have each ship challenge the other if for nothing more than the publicity effect!) To the general public contemporary to their respective times, I'm certain that all of these ship would have been names as well-recognized as were the Queens until their withdrawal from service. Conversely, even to those of us who study and preserve maritime history, they probably would have been just another of a series of beautiful liners documented in a Bill Miller picture book.

Regarding the fickle interest of the general public in these ships, for most people the ships were only notable for the infamous demise of two of them, each with great loss of life; to these people the ships are little more than a footnote in history, if that ‚Äď that is, until something like the 1985 discovery of Titanic's wreck hits the news -- and then the ships rapidly fade back out of sight.

Both of those vessels have faded in and out of the consciousness of the general public many times over the past century. However, for the professional community of naval architects, marine engineers, shipbuilders and ship owners, the specter of the loss of these ships continues to linger and to inform. There's scarcely a technical book that has been written in the last century on the twin subjects of marine engineering and naval architecture that doesn't mention one or both of these ships in some manner in touching on the subjects of subdivision, pumping arrangements and lifesaving equipment.

This is fun. Wonder why he'd need a second purpose for the thing. No contracts yet, no construction of anything. Linked below - you can read the whole article. I took a decent bit but not all - these stories have a habit of getting pay-walled...

In my mind, making a Titanic film that's better than James Cameron's isn't a very difficult task. I am most likely going to need to elaborate on my thought process here:

I've always been an analytic thinker, and a huge fan of when movies are accurate in small details; James Cameron got so many small details wrong that I hypothesize that one cannot view any 60 straight seconds of the movie without one or more errors showing up, even ignoring the fictitious main cast (which I have little problem with seeing as it's effectively established from the start of the film that these people are fictitious... well, aside from how they appear and behave EXTRAORDINARILY unusually for people of the era of their respective social statuses... and the whole thing about giving "J. Dawson" an identity crisis....). What's worse than that, to me, is that he kept on shuffling around the ship for the sake of "creative license," yet he keeps the name "Titanic." He could have gone the route of the 1929 film "Atlantic" for manipulating the ship as much as he did (Widening the Grand Staircase for his own devices, making decks 15 feet tall instead of 9 feet tall, inserting a door to the motor car cargo hold, etc.), but instead he chose a path which, as far as I can tell, actually set Titanic research back by several years (To give one example off the top of my head, as far as I have been able to find, the the assumption that Titanic split apart between her third and fourth funnels, instead of her second and third funnel, originated from James Cameron's film, as even original passenger testimony stated second and third). And then there's all of the heroes of the Titanic disaster that that film depicted as being villainous, even murderous....

I could go on for longer than the movie's running time with all of my personal gripes with it, and the more I think about it, the less appeal I can find for anyone, anywhere in the film (I have often heard this movie get referred to as a "chick flick," but Rose certainly seems to be a harlot, to use it in I-hope-board-appropriate-word-choice).

So to wrap this up, making a better Titanic film than James Cameron did doesn't seem like it will be a very difficult task.

Also, I've heard, from the official Twitter account and from a Youtube video from the person who is apparently doing it (or intending to do it? The video is for a KickStarter campaign that is no longer running) that they're working on a documentary of this vessel's construction.

I mostly agree with your post, Shannon. But Cameron's Titanic had a HUGE budget and in order to be profitable it needed to appeal to the widest possible audience - which means the popcorn crowd. Back in 1997 when Titanic was made, CGI techniques were VERY expensive. Now they can be produced cheaply.

A better Titanic film could (and should) be made, but it would not be a blockbuster. I thought the TV film "Sinking of the Lusitania: Terror at Sea" was a great example of what could be achieved in this genre with a low budget. Super film with well cast actors in key roles and nice special effects, but had a niched audience.

"The Sinking of Laconia", and the docudrama on Brunel's Great Eastern (Seven Wonders of the Industrial World" series) also stand out in my mind as decent films.

But in Titanic's case, perhaps a better choice than the film format would be a mini-series -- of HBO quality. Not only should it cover the disaster, but also the ship's history, the White Star Line, the HW yard, Ismay, Andrews. I can see it all done perfectly.

The disaster itself could easily consume two one-hour length episodes, and there would be scope for episodes dealing with the aftermath. Done in the right way it would be a wonderful drama series. I can imagine six parts.

Titanic: Birth of a Legend stands out in my mind as an EXCELLENT docudrama about the Titanic in my opinion. It gets so many details right (aside from using a Titanic model when the Titanic/Olympic changes were far from being made) that it had downright surprised me and even taught me new things about the ship's development, such as how Alexander Carlisle left Harland and Wolff over an argument about the ship's lifeboat numbers.

If a new film about the Titanic's sinking were made, I would hope that the film would include certain details that no Titanic film to date has, such as actually portraying Titanic's near miss with the SS City of New York, or having Titanic's band play the Propior Deo version of Nearer, My God, to Thee instead of the ever-common Horbury or Bethany versions.

I liked that too but it had a bit too much focus on the violence for my liking, and the ending just seemed liked it was rushed through. Sometimes the effects were great and sometimes not. And they always floodlight the funnels in these films!

Ah, yes, the other thing that's constantly missed in Titanic media! I'm hoping that Titanic II doesn't light the funnels the way that many films and even documentaries do. I asked Deltamarin about it at one point, and they replied by saying that they don't use films or media portrayals as sources.